RAMESH CHAND Vs. KRISHAN CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller directing his eviction under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) KRISHAN Chander, landlord, filed the ejectment application against his tenant Ramesh Chander under Section 13A of the Act, on the ground that he was a "specified landlord" as he was to retire on August 31, 1987. He was in the service of the Punjab Government. He needed the premises, in dispute, for his residential purposes and for the settlement of his married son Parveen Kumar. The tenant contested the ejectment application inter alia on the ground that it was not maintainable in the present form as he could not get the benefit under the said Act. According to the tenant, the premises, in dispute, were in a non-residential area. Besides, the premises, in dispute, were leased out to the firm M/s Scenic Industries, Kotkapura. The landlord did not require the premises for his personal use and occupation and for the settlement of his son Parveen Kumar. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence came to the conclusion that taking into consideration the number of the family members of the petitioner and his married sons, it is held that the premises in dispute are required by him. According to the learned Rent Controller, the requirement of the landlord was genuine and consequently, the eviction order was passed on May 7, 1988.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that earlier, the ejectment application was dismissed primarily on the ground that the landlord being in service was residing in Bhatinda whereas the premises, in dispute, are situated at Kotkapura and, therefore, it was found by the authorities then that the landlord did not require the premises bonafide for his use and occupation. Thus, he argued that after the retirement since the landlord was to settle in Kotkapura, the ground taken earlier by the authorities was no more available. Moreover, meanwhile Parveen Kumar, another son of the landlord was also married and he required the premises for his married son as well which ground was not available to him earlier.